Dixon v. State, 2011 Ark. 450

Kevin Dixon convicted by Miller County jury of capital-felony murder with aggravated robbery as underlying felony; sentenced to life without parole; issues on evidentiary rulings and sufficiency of evidence; appeal filed under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2(a)(2).
Body discovered June 15, 2009, Vargas deceased from gunshot wound; scene showed signs suggesting robbery and drug involvement; Dixon’s phone number linked to the victim’s phone records; multiple witnesses connected Dixon to drugs and to Vargas.
Investigation showed Dixon had $2900 on arrest; witnesses testified Dixon used a red Tahoe to deliver drugs; gun recovered from Spring Lake later linked to the homicide; autopsy confirmed cocaine and alcohol in Vargas’s system.
Defense challenged admission of Dixon’s drug-activity testimony, hearsay, autopsy photographs, and denial of mistrial; State relied on circumstantial evidence tying Dixon to the crime.
Trial court admitted evidence under res gestae for drug activity and allowed photographs; court denied mistrial; defendant preserved several evidentiary objections for appeal.
Court affirmed conviction, holding sufficiency of the evidence supports capital-felony murder; no reversible error in challenged evidentiary rulings; mistrial denial not shown to be an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence	Dixon contends insufficient to prove robbery and causation	State argues substantial evidence supports conviction	Sufficient evidence supports conviction
Drug activity admissibility	Rule 404(b) and 403 barred evidence of drug dealing	Evidence integral to circumstances; res gestae exception applies	Admissible as res gestae; no abuse of discretion
Hearsay	Two statements admitted as hearsay; prejudicial	Declarants were present for cross-examination or statements harmless	Admissibility not reversible error; harmless as declarant available for cross-examination
Autopsy photographs	Photographs inflammatory and prejudicial	Photographs helpful to explain testimony and assess injuries	Not an abuse of discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice
Mistrial	Hayes's sympathetic remark tainted jury; mistrial warranted	Admonition could cure prejudice; no manifest prejudice shown	No abuse; denial of mistrial affirmed

Sweet v. State, 370 S.W.3d 510 (Ark. 2011) (substantial-evidence standard for circumstantial cases; standard for prejudicial error in Rule 4-3 review)
Haynes v. State, 58 S.W.3d 336 (Ark. 2001) (substantial evidence test for circumstantial cases)
Ross v. State, 57 S.W.3d 152 (Ark. 2001) (circumstantial evidence may support a conviction; excludes reasonable hypotheses of innocence)
Norris v. State, 368 S.W.3d 52 (Ark. 2010) (sufficiency review; review in light of State’s evidence only)
Harper v. State, 194 S.W.3d 730 (Ark. 2004) (allowing inference of intent to rob from surrounding circumstances)
Gaines v. State, 8 S.W.3d 547 (Ark. 2000) (404(b) and res gestae considerations in admissibility)